Cross-Complainant Live Nation Worldwide Inc.’s motion for leave to file an amended cross-complaint
479), deferring to the trial court’s resolution of disputed facts and assessment of witness credibility. Pope v. Babick (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1245-1246. If the trial court makes no express findings on a particular issue, the court of appeal will imply findings in favor of the trial court’s ruling if they are supported by substantial evidence. Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1148-1149.
A summons may be served on a corporation by personal delivery to the agent for service of process, the president, CEO or “other head of the corporation,” vice president, secretary, assistant secretary, treasurer, assistant treasurer, controller or CFO of the corporation. Code Civ. Proc. § 416.10(a), (b). Or substitute service may be made by leaving the summons and complaint with a person apparently in charge and mailing a copy to the same address. Code Civ. Proc. 415.20(a).
Here, Plaintiff did not serve the complaint on Pacific Dealer Center’s agent for service of process, the president, CEO or “other head of the corporation,” vice president, secretary, assistant secretary, treasurer, assistant treasurer, controller or CFO of the corporation. The complaint and summons were addressed to someone else entirely (someone called Peter Dames) and left with an office manager.
Service on Pacific Dealer Center was therefore not proper. In the absence of opposition, Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing proper service.
Accordingly, the motion for relief from default is granted.
3. 2023-1356907 Cross-Complainant Live Nation Worldwide Inc.’s (“Live Nation”) Hook vs. Rocha Motion for leave to file an amended cross-complaint is granted.
By the proposed pleading, Live Nation seeks leave to add causes of action for breach of contract and express indemnity against Defendant S & S Labor Force dba JRM Private Security (“JRM”), and add JRM to already-pleaded causes of action for equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “[t]he court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” The amendment of pleadings is also permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 576, “at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
terms as may be proper.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) While this discretion will generally be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings, the court acts within its discretion to deny an amendment where there has been a long delay in seeking the amendment and allowing the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing side. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 488.)
Here, Live Nation has substantially complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.
JRM opposed Live Nation’s ex parte application seeking advancement of the hearing on the instant motion. Within that opposition, the JRM argued prejudice because of the trial date. (ROA 332.) However, in response to that argument, the Court continued the trial date to allow for additional discovery. (ROA 334.) JRM provides no further opposition.
Thus, the Motion is granted.
Live Nation shall electronically file the first amended cross- complaint within 10 days pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure.
Live Nation shall serve notice of this Order.
4. 2023-1332366 Plaintiffs Adorn Premiums, LLC’s and Joshua Ivey’s motion to Adorn continue the trial date is denied as moot. Premiums LLC vs. J Style On 4/6/26, the Court continued trial on its own motion to Tuesday, Premiums, February 16, 2027. LCC Court orders clerk to give notice.
5. 2024-1417627 Judgment debtor Shelley Hawkins’ Claim of Exemption is granted. Sullivan vs. Hawkins Judgment Debtor claims the funds levied from her Schools First Federal Credit Union accounts are exempt. The Court has considered the Claim of Exemption, which was made under penalty of perjury, the supporting documents, and the Notice of Opposition to Claim of Exemption, and determines the claim of exemption should be granted in its entirety. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 704.190, 704.220, 704.225.)
The Court hereby orders the levying officer to return the levied property within 20 business days of receipt of notice of the order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (d)(4).)